Now of course he did state exactly that in one of the Reagan-era memos. That was an appropriate statement given his job at the time. But it would be a totally inappropriate response to a question during his confirmation hearings. And he knows it. Why can't we get the point? It's really not all that hard. The DimWits desperately hope he might say that he's changed his mind. We hope he has not. Which is more likely--that he has changed his mind or has not? Why are we so insecure as to be terrified unless he states that he has not changed his mind? If he were to say that he has not changed his mind, he would undermine his credibility, even put himself in the position of being pressured to death by the MSM to recuse himself when the issue arises after he's confirmed. By assuring us that he has not changed his mind he would undermine his ability to do exactly what we hope he will do once on the bench. That he's smart enough to know that should be reassuring to us. That he won't tell the DimRats what they want to hear (that he's changed his mind) in order to assure his own confirmation should tell us that he probabaly has not changed his mind about R v W being bad law. Nothing he said about respecting precedent precludes him from overturning R v W because it was bad law and plenty that he said greases the skids for overturning R v W, which is why the DimRats are so frustrated. We need to let them do the squirming while we trust in what he wrote about R v W 20 years ago and assume that his silence now indicates he still thinks the same, which is exactly why he won't say he still thinks the same--if he did, he'd have rendered himself unable to do what we want him to do.
Is it really all that difficult?
I believe that true strict constructionism would overturn R v W. But a careful legal argument will have to be made with regard to precedent and stare decisis etc. if the overtuning is to be properly judicial and strict constructionist rather than a quick politically motivated act of judicial activism. The end result is the same but how one gets there makes all the difference. I want to get there but by a method that does make our side guilty of the same kind of sloppy jurisprudence that created the mess in the first place. Roberts seems to understand that, but we have to keep saying "seems" because his proper and faithful umpire-analogy for the role of a judge simply does not permit him to say in advance what his political views are. Judges are to judge on the merits of the case, not on their political views. We believe that on the merits of the case, R v W can and should be overturned. But let's be patient enough to let it be overturned by good jurisprudence. Otherwise, we gain a Pyrrhic victory.